AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

yeah meant declaration, the bill of rights is the first 10 Amendments of the constitution, except those rights existed before, the south was not fighting for their right to have slaves, they were fighting for their right to make their own decisions (one of which was slaves), as far as the death penalty goes, you commit a crime you give up certain rights, like felons and such cannot vote, nor have the right to bare arms.

...which means those rights aren't inalienable at all! What a shocker!

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is an interesting article about concepts of property in philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

One thing you will note is that there is a concept of collective or non-private property. Would this conflict with the idea of a right to private property?

I don't think so. I don't have direct private ownership over everything I use and I don't need to have it. In a society you have communal property and private property. You can have societies that have both or only private property (in theory) but I don't think you can have only collective property rights. I don't think it's possible to stamp out individuality from people and that individuality is going to need to be expressed and that's when private property comes into play. Everyone is going to want some form of their own stuff and to make it theirs so you'll always have some level of private property ownership.

I have a natural inalienable right to my body and what I do with my body including the work I use my body to do. SInce I own my body and the work it does I also own all or at least part of the proceeds of that work. Since I own the proceeds I own what I use the proceeds to procure for myself, hence creating property that is solely mine.

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

That might be the most pointless answer I've ever gotten here on DakkaDakka.

because it proves your theory wrong? that you think one of the first 10 Amendments can be revoked or removed and yet here is one that has not been used in over 200 years and yet it still resides there untouched, unscathed and so forth.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


The Founding Fathers had absolutely no trust whatsoever in majoritarian government (i.e. democracy of any kind). That's why they created a Constitutional Republic, and not a fething "democracy".

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



I hope folks enjoy reading this little history lesson, short write-up on what our Founding ideals were, and outline of what our Founders intended. Because I sure as hell didn't enjoy typing out what should understood by Americans, even in this age of American Idol, ideological bickering, agendas, selfishness, and intellectual laziness. I didn't need some academic prick or Wikipedia to fill my head with nonsense, "interpretation", and theories. I've read the Constitution myself. I've read the Declaration of Independence myself. I've read the the writings of the Founding Fathers myself. I've read the Federalist Papers myself. And to be honest, it doesn't take a lawyer, a professor with a doctorate, a judge, or some nebulous "expert" to understand what was behind our system of government or Constitution.

Have a nice day.